In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo said: In fact, there are protocols
for making the inference that "Henry" claims; under *those* protocols,
Roundup was shown to be not dangerous when used as directed.


billo

H. Kuska reply: Please provide the references

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/



Sure, no problem.

Try:


Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC. "Safety evaluation and risk
assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient,
glyphosate, for humans." Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2000
31:117-165.


The danger of Roundup is so small that it is difficult to
provide any study that will show any excess mortality.
Attempts to do so have failed. However, it is possible
to calculate the excess mortality of all pesticides/herbicides
put together (of which Roundup is among the most safe).

Thus, lumping Roundup in with known carcinogens and
bad actors, you can get some data about the real
environmental risk in terms of excess cancer mortality.

On average, there are 20 excess deaths per year in
the US due environmental exposure to all pesticides
and herbicides combined, out of a total of around
560,000 total cancer deaths in 1999.

In 1981, Doll and Peto's epidemiologic estimates of
quatitative cancer risk found pesticide/herbicide
exposure to be negligible (Doll R. Peto R. "The causes
of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks
of cancer in the United States today" J. Natl. Cancer
Institute. 1981 1191-1308.).

This study was confirmed in 1987 by the EPA (Gough, M.
"Estimating cancer mortality: epidemiological and
toxicological methods produce similar assessments." Environ
Science and Technology 23:925-930).

This was again confirmed in 1996 by the National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
who found that "the great majority of individual
naturaly-occuring and synthetic chemicals in the
diet appear to be present at levels below which
any significant adverse biologic effect is
likely, and so low that they are unlikely
to pose an appreciable cancer risk." (NRC,
1996 "Carcinogens and anticarcinogens in
the human diet: A comparison of naturally
occurring and synthetic substances. National
Research Council. Washington, DC. National
Academy Press.

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309053919/html/index.html
http://stills.nap.edu/html/diet/summary.html

This was again confirmed in 1996 a
consortium including the
World Cancer Research Fund, American
Institute of Cancer Research, World
Health Organization, National Cancer
Institute, and the International
Agency for Research on Cancer. Their
metanalysis revealed that food
contamination with pesticides posed
any significant cancer risk. In fact,
they note that the use of pesticides
may *reduce* the rate of cancer worldwide
by making foods with cancer-preventative
substances more available.

In particular they note that "there is
no direct evidence that herbicide residues,
when regulated and monitored, significantly
affect human cancer risk." (Chapter 7,
Section 7.1.2 "Herbicides.")

World Cancer Research Fund. "Food,
Nutrition, and the Prevention of
Cancer: A Global Perspective." New
York: American Institute for Cancer
Research. ISBN 1899533052 670 pp

http://www.wcrf.org/report/

This was again confirmed in 1997 with
the Canadian Cancer Society report on
pesticides, which affirmed Doll and
Peto's conclusion. "The Panel
concluded that it was not aware of any
definitive evidence to suggest that
synthetic pesticides contribute
significantly to overall cancer mortality."

"8. The Panel did not find any exising
evidence that crop protection chemicals
and lawn and garden products are likely
to be a major cause of cancer."

(Ritter, L., Clark, H. Kaegi, E.,
Morrison, H., Sieber, S. "Report
of a panel on the relationship
between public exposure to pesticides
and cancer." Cancer 80:2019-2033,1997)


billo